![]() Risk of bias assessment is important to a thorough summary of the evidence, since conclusions based on biased results can be incorrect (and dangerous, at worst). Other literature reviews rarely assess and report any formal quality assessment by individual study. In a systematic review, an effort is usually made to assess the quality of the evidence, often using risk of bias assessment, at the study level and often across studies. This can result in bias (even if it is unintentional) and missed studies. In many other literature reviews, there is only a single reviewer. Another key component of a systematic review is dual independent review of search results each search result is reviewed by at least two people independently. Reviewers hold search results against strict criteria based on the PICOs to determine appropriateness for inclusion. Usually, such parameters take the form of PICOs (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes). ![]() ![]() In a systematic review, the parameters for inclusion are established at the start of the project and applied consistently to search results. All of these extra steps reflect an attempt to minimize bias in the summary of the evidence. Systematic reviewers might search conference abstracts or the web sites of professional associations or pharmaceutical companies, and they may contact study authors to obtain additional or unpublished data. In addition, systematic reviews often include attempts to find data beyond typical databases. Multiple databases are searched, each with a specifically tailored search strategy (usually designed and implemented by a specialist librarian). While literature reviews require only one database or source, systematic reviews require more comprehensive efforts to locate evidence. Where and how one searches for evidence is an important difference. People seeking to make evidence-based decisions look to systematic reviews due to their completeness and reduced risk of bias. The goal of a systematic review is to answer a specific and focused question (example: “ Which treatment for sleep apnea reduces the apnea-hypopnea index more: CPAP or mandibular advancement device?”). The goal of a literature review can be broad and descriptive (example: “ Describe the available treatments for sleep apnea”) or it can be to answer a specific question (example: “ What is the efficacy of CPAP for people with sleep apnea?”). So, what are the 5 key differences between a systematic review and other types of review? 1 Reviews that are less rigorous are often called “narrative,” “comprehensive,” or simply “literature reviews.” A good systematic review adheres to the international standards set forth in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 27-item checklist. A “systematic review” is a specific type of review that uses rigorous and transparent methods in an effort to summarize all of the available evidence with little to no bias. Literature reviews can be very simple or highly complex, and they can use a variety of methods for finding, assessing, and presenting evidence. “Literature review” is a general term that describes a summary of the evidence on a certain topic. In this blog post, we detail five key differences between a systematic review and other types of reviews, including narrative and comprehensive reviews.įirst, we must define some terms. There are many types of reviews of the medical and public health evidence, each with its own benefits and challenges.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |